Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.Nagaresh, J.
Ali Akbar @ Ramasimhan – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 35667 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2022
Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 - Rule 24(1), (2), (12), 22, (12) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19, (1)(a) – Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Section 4, 8 - Seeking Certification of Film - Decision of Revising Committee - An eminent Film Director is forced to approach this Court as his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression has been drastically curtailed by 3rd respondent – It is evident that Chairman of Board was not satisfied with recommendation of majority and hence decided to refer matter to a Revising Committee in exercise of his powers under Rule 24(1) - Para 24.
Finding of the Court :
A reading of Rule 24(12) would show that decision of Revising Committee should be by majority - Therefore, when five out of eight members of Revising Committee approved film with seven modifications, Chairman had option either to accept recommendation of Revising Committee or if Chairman disagrees with decision of majority of Committee, refer matter to Board for examination of film - Proviso to Rule 24(12) is clear that where Chairman disagrees with decision of majority of Revising Committee, then it is only Board which can either itself examine film or cause film to be examined again by another Revising Committee - In this case, Chairman himself has referred film to a second Revising Committee - Action of Chairman is illegal and is in violation of Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 - Exts.P3 and P4 orders are therefore set aside.
Result : Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
An eminent Malayalam Film Director is forced to approach this Court as his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression has been drastically curtailed by the 3rd respondent, otherwise than in accordance with the procedure established by law.
2. The petitioner is a Malayalam Film Director, Screen Writer and Lyricist, who has directed more than 20 Malayalam Films. He is recipient of the Kerala State Film Award for Best Debut Director for his movie titled “Mamalakalkkappurath”. The petitioner produced and directed a Malayalam movie “Puzha Muthal Puzha Vare” based on the Malabar Rebellion of 1921.
3. The petitioner submitted an application on 17.05.2022 to the 2nd respondent-Central Board of Film Certification seeking certification of the Film “Puzha Muthal Puzha Vare”. The 4th respondent constituted an Examination Committee for the Film. The Committee, after examining the movie, submitted its recommendations on 25.06.2022. The 3rd respondent-Chairman of CBFC referred the movie to a Revising Committee.
4. The Revising Committee examined the movie on 05.08.2022. The petitioner was summoned by the Revising Committee and various aspects of the Film were discussed. The 10-Member Revising Committee, by a majority decision (7/10), decided to issue 'A' certification to the movie with a few cuts. The petitioner would submit that the said Revising Committee had a distinguished historian from the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), as one of its Members.
5. To the surprise and predicament of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, instead of placing the recommendation of the Revising Committee before the CBFC, again referred the Film to a second Revising Committee. The petitioner states that the decision of the 3rd respondent communicated through Ext.P3 letter referring the movie to a second Revising Committee purportedly under Rule 24(2) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 is highly illegal and arbitrary.
6. The Second Revising Committee examined the petitioner's movie on 18.08.2022. There were no Members proficient in History or knowledgeable in Malayalam language, in the second Revising Committee. By Ext.P4 communication dated 24.08.2022, the petitioner has been informed that the Board has decided to certify the petitioner's Film for public exhibition restricted to adults provided the petitioner carry out excisions/modifications as suggested.
7. The petitioner states that though the modifications suggested is 12 in number, in effect, total number of excisions will be much more than 12 and it will undermine the very soul of the movie. The action of the respondents infringes the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, contends the petitioner.
8. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a counter affidavit and resisted the writ petition. The respondents submitted that an application for certification of the feature film titled 'Puzha Muthal Puzha Vare' was received on 17.05.2022. Requisite supporting documents were not uploaded by the petitioner along with the application. Hence, the application was returned on 26.05.2022. The petitioner resubmitted the application. The film was screened by the Examining Committee on 26.04.2022. The Examining Committee consisted of the Regional Officer, CBFC, Thiruvananthapuram as Examining Officer and four Advisory Panel Members.
9. On examining the film, three members of the Examining Committee recommended denial of certification to the film as those members found that the film contained visuals as well as dialogues which are likely to endanger public order. The remaining two members of the Examining Committee recommended UA Certification (Unrestricted Public Exhibition with Parental Guidance for children below the age of 12 years).
10. The Regional Officer sent the recommendations of the Committee members to the Chairman of the Board. The Chairman referred the film to a revising committee on 27.06.2022. The Revising Committee exam
Point of Law : Rule 24(12) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 would make it abundantly clear that if the Chairman of the Board disagrees with the recommendations of a Revising Committee....
The authority to refer a film to a Revising Committee exists only before a certification decision is made; post-approval actions are without jurisdiction.
The Court held that the Revising Committee is required to assign reasons while granting 'U' certificate to a film with excisions and that no reasons were assigned by the Revising Committee in this ca....
The court emphasized that failure to challenge a decision undermines writ petition maintainability, highlighting the necessity of procedural fairness in legal proceedings.
The court emphasized the necessity for proper reasoning and adherence to natural justice in film certification processes, highlighting that insufficient consideration of defamation claims violates pr....
Artistic expression in film must be balanced with state interests in censorship, ensuring compliance with statutory guidelines without undermining fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)....
Artistic freedom of expression under the Cinematograph Act must be upheld, and censorship must consider the overall social message of a film without imposing undue restrictions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
